Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The 1-year-old boy in a green button-up shirt drank milk from a bottle, played with a small purple ball that lit up when it hit the ground and occasionally asked for “agua.”

Then it was the child’s turn for his court appearance before a Phoenix immigration judge, who could hardly contain his unease with the situation during the portion of the hearing where he asks immigrant defendants whether they understand the proceedings.

“I’m embarrassed to ask it, because I don’t know who you would explain it to, unless you think that a 1-year-old could learn immigration law,” Judge John W. Richardson told the lawyer representing the 1-year-old boy.

And as for the biblical justification - there are enough other Christians who are condemning it - I'd start to worry that I was going to the wrong bible classes.

It does seem like cultish* behaviour.

*not a typo

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

You're too kind. There's plenty of reason to think that nastier emotions were in play, after all.

Yes, this program didn't arise out of neglect; it was the conscious desire to inflict emotional pain that would serve as a deterrent to other immigrants. Jeff Sessions can barely contain his glee when he talks about it. Such "Christians" need to pray that there is no hell.

Franklin Graham came out pretty strongly against it. He's always been kind of a Trump fanboy. Maybe there are others.

I guess that his name would have traction amongst many in the Religious Right.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

This is where I have to part company with Chuck Schumer when he talks about civility. This isn't a political difference. We aren't debating the latest farm bill, or tweaking health care. We're doing this to children. This isn't politics and we shouldn't use the same civility we'd use to discuss tax policy to discuss what we're doing to children. So, yes, if you are a party to it. You should get no sleep. You shouldn't be allowed to go out to eat with decent people. Your life should crumble around you until you stop hurting children. We can't normalize this behavior by allowing it to occupy the same civility as other political discourse.

Exactly there is going to be no more accounting for anyone than there was for the torture programs. So we can see those running these private prison profit centers to rise to high office in the future.

Barely three weeks later, Donald Trump has solved the hiring slowdown by issuing a sweeping executive order citing Lucia and declaring that all ALJs will now be political appointees rather than selected. To call it a boon for the Trump administration, and the GOP, would be a radical understatement. They’ve just been handed the opportunity to appoint ALJs based on their own, totally political criteria, rigging the immigration law system.

Because things could always be worse, Lucia also gives Trump grounds to argue for the removal of current ALJs selected through the old process. We can only wait and see.

And... yeah. The moment I heard the call for lots more immigration judges by Trump, this is pretty much what I expected, only even worse.

As the administration continues to house thousands of children, Slate claims the Trump administration has reallocated funds within the Department of Health and Human Services. The money is being moved from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program to ICE and other agencies dealing with the detention of children.

According to PinkNews:

“The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which was set up in 1990, has been funded across multiple Presidential administrations and works to ‘provide a comprehensive system of care that includes primary medical care and essential support services for people living with HIV'”.

Do we even have a Congress when the POTUS can just do anything regardless of what the Congress voted for?

Then there is this disgusting piece in the scumbaggery:

Quote:

Mike Pence’s Dream Come True
Vice President Mike Pence, a staunch supporter of “gay cure” therapy, may have a hand in the move. Pence once said he wanted to drain the fund to support therapy programs for gay men and women.

During his 2000 Congressional campaign the Mike Pence website posted the following note:

“Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus.

“Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behaviour.”

__________________Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Now that the Confederacy has won, time to change the flag to the Stars and Bars. Why waste time, and delay frank admission? Still milking the tattered remains of past Yankee glory before starting the public lynchings, are we, boys? C'mon, man up, and make Whoop and Holler, Anything for a Dollar the national anthem. That'll go better during the torture and child abuse sessions, too.

__________________Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Do any of you know the steps that happen when a person is caught trying to cross the Southern border?

Once you're apprehended where do they detain you and for how long? Are you interviewed during that detention to see if you are going to apply for asylum, be sent back immediately, be arrested and held? How long do you stay in detention and how are you labeled? Do you get legal advice or any help at all?

I've done a lot of researching but I can't find all I'm after. I have found we fly illegal immigrants back to Central America if they have to go back immediately and I guess later too. If from Mexico you just have to get back on your own.

You can apply for a green card if you're eligible and that can take years but you can stay in the US. Can't find all the details on this either when it's to do with these people being held at the border.

It is suppose to take a few days, 3, to be deported immediately. I'm trying to figure out how kids were separated but then they lost where they were located etc. Who were the parents and what was their status? How could they lose them in three days? Must have been people who end up being a complicated mess. Want to know details.

Also if kids are now going to be left with their parents, who gets to stay with their parents until they are deported or accepted, could be kids that are with adults who are not their parents, how is this determined, how long does it take and where do they stay? What if they have no money or no where to stay if released? I have so many questions and can't find answers.

I don't want answers from any left leaning journalists I want facts. If anyone knows where I can get this information could you please give me the info? I can't form an honest opinion on how I feel about what's happening at the border unless I know all of the facts. I'm for more security and a closed border but I want to know all that is taking place right now with how this is being handled. Looked at government sites but still can't find all I'm looking for.

How is it possible that someone who derisively uses the phrase "left-leaning journalists" could find anything useful on NPR's website?

Do you think NPR would make this information up, make a document like this and fake it exists? This looks legit to me, does it to you, guess not.

Please tell me where I can find facts about this issue? The facts I'm looking for.

The document I posted told me this is what the detained migrants are receiving, do you not think this is true?

The Director of Homeland Security has not given a straight answer on the Separation of children and I can't even find information on how many children have been found or reunited with their parents as of today.

How have you verified that it was not an "answer from a left leaning journalist"?

You don't want facts, you want to make something out of me saying I don't want info from left leaning journalists. I don't want information that's sensationalized.

Like I said, this looks legit to me no matter who got this document and made it public.

I wanted a source that I could trust and be able to find information I'm unable to find, I've already read most of what is on the Interent from liberal sources. Was hoping to find the information on Government sites and I'll keep looking.

Do any of you know the steps that happen when a person is caught trying to cross the Southern border?

You ask some very good questions. Federal officials should have hashed this all out before deciding to deprive border cops of any operational discretion.

The broad answer is ... agents probably were allowed to prioritize vs. detaining and prosecuting *everyone*.

I don't think you'll find one SOP, because circumstances can vary so wildly. It depends on how far from the border people are apprehended, what else is going on generally, whether they are committing serious crimes, whether they are victims of or witnesses to serious crimes, whether they need medical help, whether they're from Mexico, whether there is space in lockup ... and whether they have small children.

Are city cops told they have to arrest and book everyone who they suspect of doing anything illegal? Before imposing one procedure on a 2,000-mile-long border and vast interior space, with hundreds of thousands of arrests per month, someone should have stopped to think and coordinate.

There's also the fact that major economic interests want some of those people to get through.

I'm for more security and a closed border but I want to know all that is taking place right now with how this is being handled. Looked at government sites but still can't find all I'm looking for.

A "closed" border or a "secure" border? They are not the same thing.

One of the problems with getting immigration legislation passed recently in the House was that farm states did not want to making using E-Verify mandatory. A certain amount of illegal immigration benefits the economy.

Here's a Washington Post article about it, maybe not the very best or most current but pretty informative.

As far as the press being left-leaning, I pretty much agree. It's a combination of people entering journalism who want to make the world fairer, and people (like me) who through journalistic reporting began to see that real life was more complicated than any one ideology can really encompass. I was considered conservative during a guest stint at USA Today, just because I didn't think the government could solve every problem. I came to see that government could try to rationally address problems, though. And trying to impose top-down, one-size-fits-all "solution" like "zero tolerance" works against rational planning.

I would describe myself as left-leaning now, because I believe there are collective problems that call for collective, coordinated responses.

.....As far as the press being left-leaning, I pretty much agree. It's a combination of people entering journalism who want to make the world fairer, and people (like me) who through journalistic reporting began to see that real life was more complicated than any one ideology can really encompass.
......

Real journalists (I exclude the Fox, Breitbart etc. crowd) lose their idealism pretty quickly, but they are committed to discovering and reporting the facts. Somehow it has come to be seen as "liberal" or "left-wing" to report facts if they conflict with the right-wing dogma, whether it's about climate change, immigration, tax policy, health care, or anything else that threatens the wealth and power of the .1 percent.

Indeed. I'm quite fond of a "secure" border, myself, but not of a "closed" border. Of note, though, when completely legal means of seeking *asylum* are being effectively denied or impeded for no good reason, like we can see going on right now, I have no problem at all with those who cross the border illegally and immediately apply for asylum being treated as having taken completely legal action, on that front.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

One of the problems with getting immigration legislation passed recently in the House was that farm states did not want to making using E-Verify mandatory. A certain amount of illegal immigration benefits the economy.

More specifically, a certain amount of unskilled immigration very much benefits the economy. No need for it to be illegal. It'd be great if native American citizens would be willing to do a bunch of those farm jobs... but the numbers have shown, time and again, that they simply aren't interested in doing so in sufficient numbers.

This whole anti-immigration push by the Republicans is actually anti-economy.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

As far as the press being left-leaning, I pretty much agree.

Ehh... if your starting point is the right-wing media, it's certainly left leaning. More objectively, the mainstream media tends to be quite centrist in nature. Actually left-wing media tends to go largely unheard, and the right wing is obviously loud.

But then, as fair.org points out and then provides a fair bit of evidence to support -

Quote:

The myth of the pro-Obama media is the same as the myth of the liberal press, and it has been created by a standard strategy: Right-wing pundits declare repeatedly and vociferously that the media are biased in favor of liberals; centrist media pundits, who generally prefer critiques from the right because they don’t make a structural challenge to their work, concede that they have a point; and progressive critics, excluded from both the pro-establishment and the right-wing talkshows that dominate the media, go unheard.

In reality, the media actually tends to rest a little bit on the right, quite honestly, with all things actually considered. I'm not going to argue that that's either good or bad, really, but the right-wing pundits are really, really pushing false narratives there, as part of their us vs. them tactics.

You ask some very good questions. Federal officials should have hashed this all out before deciding to deprive border cops of any operational discretion.

The broad answer is ... agents probably were allowed to prioritize vs. detaining and prosecuting *everyone*.

I don't think you'll find one SOP, because circumstances can vary so wildly. It depends on how far from the border people are apprehended, what else is going on generally, whether they are committing serious crimes, whether they are victims of or witnesses to serious crimes, whether they need medical help, whether they're from Mexico, whether there is space in lockup ... and whether they have small children.

I was trying to understand when the migrant was considered arrested. Is there a difference in being detained and arrested? I misunderstood what the Secretary of Homeland Security had to say. She told us the media was reporting the separation of children at the border inaccurately. She said if the migrant was seeking asylum they were not arrested and children were not separated from their parents. This was only if the migrants were crossing in the correct locations, at points of entry. http:// www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/ can-you-request-asylum-border.html
Should I conclude anyone crossing the border that is not considered a port of entry is arrested and detained means arrested? Are migrants that come across at ports of entry and are seeking asylum detained in secured areas? After reading the info in the link I posted I'm even more confused.

Also I've read the children that are missing, that can' t be located, are children who came across the border alone and not with parents.

As for miles from the border, are you talking about the hundred mile law which is inside our border?
https:// www.aclu.org/other/ constitution -100-mile-border-zone

I've understood the migrants are only detained for three days on average before they are reunited with their children. In the document I posted it states 48 hours but I can't find when that particular document was used, is it current?

I also would like to know when arrested and they appear before a judge, if charged with a misdemeanor is it a fine? Do these people who cross the border carry money with them, you wouldn't think so since they must be targets for being robbed. Wondering just how this all works when they are charged with a crime? Felonies would be jailed on the spot or are they given bond, released and a court date? Wondering where they are allowed to reside.

Quote:

Are city cops told they have to arrest and book everyone who they suspect of doing anything illegal? Before imposing one procedure on a 2,000-mile-long border and vast interior space, with hundreds of thousands of arrests per month, someone should have stopped to think and coordinate.

I agree and it does seem like this is not being handled the best way possible because bills have not been passed to make new laws etc.

Quote:

There's also the fact that major economic interests want some of those people to get through.

Yes they do so consistency may not be a strong point.

Quote:

Keep looking for answers, tell us what you find out.

Thank you and I will. Probably speaking with an Immigration Atty would give me the answers I'm looking for. Doubt any Atty has the time to answer all of my questions.

Would you explain to me what you think a closed border would be? I want more security and I suppose this zero tolerance policy is close to a closed border policy but my understanding is they are just going to implement this zero tolerance policy until they get the large amount of illegal border crossings under control. Not sure just what I want, I don't know all in the bills that are being voted on. I understand obtaining a closed border is very expensive and next to impossible to stop and search everyone coming into the country.

Quote:

One of the problems with getting immigration legislation passed recently in the House was that farm states did not want to making using E-Verify mandatory. A certain amount of illegal immigration benefits the economy.

Here's a Washington Post article about it, maybe not the very best or most current but pretty informative.

Very informative and I appreciate you sharing this with me.

Quote:

As far as the press being left-leaning, I pretty much agree. It's a combination of people entering journalism who want to make the world fairer, and people (like me) who through journalistic reporting began to see that real life was more complicated than any one ideology can really encompass. I was considered conservative during a guest stint at USA Today, just because I didn't think the government could solve every problem. I came to see that government could try to rationally address problems, though. And trying to impose top-down, one-size-fits-all "solution" like "zero tolerance" works against rational planning.

I would describe myself as left-leaning now, because I believe there are collective problems that call for collective, coordinated responses.

I try to find the facts before forming an opinion and it can sometimes be difficult to find the facts unless you take a look at many different sources. Even after looking at many different sources I often have doubts.

I was trying to understand when the migrant was considered arrested. Is there a difference in being detained and arrested?

Yes and no. Are you being "arrested" or "detained" during a traffic stop? You're not free to go, but all you're really asked to do is consent to a court date. Technology is such that they can now scan your prints instantly, and get back a hit pretty quickly. I would argue that once you know the person isn't wanted for anything serious, they can safely be released, possible with monitoring. This does take time, but with enough planning that process can happen in a few hours vs. days or weeks - days or weeks in which your children are sent into a system that no one had designed for reunification with kids.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I misunderstood what the Secretary of Homeland Security had to say. She told us the media was reporting the separation of children at the border inaccurately. She said if the migrant was seeking asylum they were not arrested and children were not separated from their parents. This was only if the migrants were crossing in the correct locations, at points of entry. http:// www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/ can-you-request-asylum-border.html

Correct. However, migrants were being told that the port was closed, or that the bridge was closed - they were camping out trying to go through the port but were denied access. So they took the risk of entering illegally, probably knowing they'd be caught, but not knowing that the secret agenda was to punish them by taking away their kids, possibly forever.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Should I conclude anyone crossing the border that is not considered a port of entry is arrested and detained means arrested?

Again: It's semantics. The point of "zero tolerance" is to charge them all with misdemeanors. Which I don't have an ideological problem with, if they can be screened and monitored. Under that scenario, they (if caught, and they probably want to get caught) are, yes, technically under arrest. They're detained. They're booked. They're charged. A well-thought out process could minimize the time this takes. And perhaps there would be some provision to drop the misdemeanor if they eventually qualified for asylum.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Are migrants that come across at ports of entry and are seeking asylum detained in secured areas? After reading the info in the link I posted I'm even more confused.

If they're admitted as asylum seekers, I don't think they've done anything illegal. But close the port of entry and it becomes an issue. This I think was the origin of "catch and release," which IMO was a scare term.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Also I've read the children that are missing, that can' t be located, are children who came across the border alone and not with parents.

Certainly some are, probably teenagers, whose parents were taking advantage of Bush-era protections for unaccompanied youths seeking asylum. They're guaranteed a court date and can only be held for so long. Then they had to be farmed out to the "least constrictive" environment. That might have meant boarding with a foster family that they then walked away from in order to find work. Or maybe to be gangsters, we don't really know.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

As for miles from the border, are you talking about the hundred mile law which is inside our border?
https:// www.aclu.org/other/ constitution -100-mile-border-zone

Possibly. There are games played with statistics. U.S. officials don't want "border deaths" to be too high, so they might want to exclude some of the roughly 200,000 square miles where hundreds of people die each year. They might also massage figures on "border apprehensions." But, as far as I know, the stated policies on that are fairly clear. It has to do (I think) with Border Patrol jurisdiction, vs. ICE or similar.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I've understood the migrants are only detained for three days on average before they are reunited with their children. In the document I posted it states 48 hours but I can't find when that particular document was used, is it current?

I don't know but I doubt it. Under "catch and release" there would be no barrier to preclude 48 hours or 3 days. Under "zero tolerance" things got pretty gummed up. With planning things could still be fast-tracked - plead guilty, boom, get on a plane to Guatemala. Except in practice people were being deported without their kids. Bait-and-switch, IMO, whether for nefarious purposes or due to ineptitude, I'm not sure, but given statements by Jeff Sessions and to a lesser extent Sarah Sanders I think some of it was deliberate cruelty.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I also would like to know when arrested and they appear before a judge, if charged with a misdemeanor is it a fine?

I would think that is waived or deferred, but that parents would be on unsupervised probation and if their print turned up again they'd possibly face a felony charge. The kids could be printed too; I don't know if that took place. Some of them got (ID) bracelets.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Do these people who cross the border carry money with them, you wouldn't think so since they must be targets for being robbed.

They are targets for robbery, rape, kidnapping for ransom, human trafficking. And some, I assume, are genuinely bad hombres.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Wondering just how this all works when they are charged with a crime? Felonies would be jailed on the spot or are they given bond, released and a court date? Wondering where they are allowed to reside.

Conditions in the field would influence some of that. Felonies probably would be jailed on the spot if charged, I'm guessing with no or prohibitive bond. Misdemeanors might depend on available transport, or if the detainee can be placed with U.S. citizens or green cardholders, or whether they can and maybe even desire to be held in detention. By law, immigration officials must fill 34,000 detention beds each night. No other law enforcement agency has a quota for detainee beds that must be filled. Some people think this benefits private prisons and logistics agencies.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I agree and it does seem like this is not being handled the best way possible because bills have not been passed to make new laws etc.

A lot of it doesn't require bills, which is a good thing because nobody can pass anything. It's almost axiomatic: Any given measure attracts enough opposition to kill it. That's why Bush, McCain and others pushed for a grand bargain that included a provisional path to legal status, beefed-up security, guest-worker visas, E-Verify, modifications to chain immigration, the Dream Act etc. Something for everyone. If zero tolerance is the policy - leaving aside whether it's a good policy - that can be mitigated by well-thought-out measures to streamline processing time, put monitoring in place, possibly arrange for quick deportation with their kids etc.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Thank you and I will. Probably speaking with an Immigration Atty would give me the answers I'm looking for. Doubt any Atty has the time to answer all of my questions.

Legal aid types love educating people on immigration law. But immigration law is a huge, sprawling topic. It's a kludge, since the last time our country revamped the system comprehensively was 1986, when a Democratic congress passed and Ronald Reagan signed a bill that involved no wall, granted amnesty and established weak procedures making it a crime to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant.

Some have speculated that this 1986 law accelerated demographic change in the U.S. Instead of coming and going relatively freely across the "porous" border, seasonal workers, generally unaccompanied men, who once returned to Mexico during the off-season started bringing up their wives and having babies. (Thus the feared "anchor babies.") Mexicans like babies, not to stereotype but my Mexican-American students seemed shocked that I didn't have any.

So there started being families that were a mix of citizens, illegal immigrants, green-card holders etc. Family separations started to become a policy issue, and few politicians wanted to be seen as ripping apart families. Until the Trump administration, which was either indifferent or looking forward to it. Not necessarily even Trump himself, but Sessions, Miller etc.

I was trying to understand when the migrant was considered arrested. Is there a difference in being detained and arrested? I misunderstood what the Secretary of Homeland Security had to say. She told us the media was reporting the separation of children at the border inaccurately. She said if the migrant was seeking asylum they were not arrested and children were not separated from their parents. This was only if the migrants were crossing in the correct locations, at points of entry. http:// www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/ can-you-request-asylum-border.html

Strange, that's mostly in agreement with what "the media," which primarily means the "not right-wing media" in this case, has been saying, though it has pointed out that there are cases when there is separation anyways.

Quote:

Todd C. Owen, the assistant commissioner for the Office of Field Operations, said that between early May, when the zero-tolerance policy began, and July 2, a few weeks after the practice ended, there were just seven cases of children being separated out of 5,298 families who appeared at ports of entry. There are 48 ports of entry along the southwest border.

He said in all seven cases, the children were separated because an adult traveling with them had a criminal record. Mr. Owen said the department had always separated children from their parents when there was a danger to the children.

There are good reasons to separate a child from their guardians sometimes, though, as just about everyone on both sides agrees, after all. A Trump Administration official who's bashing the media wrongly, who would have guessed?

The problem here is deeper, though.

By international law, in a way that the US had agreed to uphold, applying for asylum can be done with no penalty even if borders are crossed without official permission. Doing so actually should actually negate any potential issue there, no less. The Trump administration has been removing paths to so much as apply for asylum before entry and then throwing a wrench in the gears for the rest of the potential ways. Then, when it comes to the people who cross without the official permission that they don't actually need because of the Trump Administration's BS, the Zero Tolerance policy comes into play, potentially being applied before any request for asylum can even be made. The Zero tolerance policy is being done by twisting the laws that states that the action in question is a civil offense into being treated as a criminal offense. As part of the fact that it's being treated as a criminal offense, minors were (and likely still are) being separated from their "criminal" parents, on grounds quite inconsistent with the grounds that such may happen in other cases of "criminal" parents. Having a dependent is actually one of the big reasons for all but some rather specific kinds of criminals to not be imprisoned or "detained until trial," after all.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Should I conclude anyone crossing the border that is not considered a port of entry is arrested and detained means arrested?

"Arrested" deals with the beginning of the process. "Detained," in the relevant sense here, is a potential continued action.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Are migrants that come across at ports of entry and are seeking asylum detained in secured areas? After reading the info in the link I posted I'm even more confused.

Hmm. The law states that asylum seekers are allowed to stay on American soil and that the government is holding that it has the right to detain asylum seekers, so long as it's done on American soil. I'm seeing nothing about any distinction in how asylum was sought when it comes to that, anywhere. The main difference with applying before entry versus after entry seems to deal with whether they can apply the zero tolerance policy to separate a family and whether they're automatically put onto an expedited removal list.

He also rebuffed claims that customs officers had denied migrants the ability to make asylum claims or that the agency had prevented immigrants from entering the United States by putting officers on bridges at the ports of entry.

Mr. Owen said the officers stopped migrants from entering because of a capacity issue.

“Ports were not designed for the large-scale detention for the number of migrants we’re seeing today,” he said. He added that customs officers had not denied asylum to migrants because they did not have the authority to hear such cases.

So... yes. Automatic detention and prevention from seeking asylum. Exacerbated by the current violation of policy to hold pretty much all of them until trial.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Also I've read the children that are missing, that can' t be located, are children who came across the border alone and not with parents.

Primarily. It's quite worth noting that the point about the separated children is not that they're "lost," though, but rather that there's no viable system in place to handle reuniting the families that were separated under totally BS reasoning and that, in fact, it looks like some of the government agencies have actually made reuniting them much, much more difficult, somewhat gratuitously.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I've understood the migrants are only detained for three days on average before they are reunited with their children. In the document I posted it states 48 hours but I can't find when that particular document was used, is it current?

To be clear, which document is this? You can directly post the link rather than breaking it up, to note.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I also would like to know when arrested and they appear before a judge, if charged with a misdemeanor is it a fine?

It depends a bit, likely? I don't have a good general answer for you there, though.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Do these people who cross the border carry money with them, you wouldn't think so since they must be targets for being robbed.

If they're literally fleeing for their lives and safety, with no intention to return if possible... Why wouldn't they have what they can carry on them?

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I agree and it does seem like this is not being handled the best way possible because bills have not been passed to make new laws etc.

There are certainly major problems with the immigration system. The Trump Administration has been pointedly making them worse, though, and actively subverting the laws that are in place. I'd dare to say that the active subversion of the laws and pointed removal of the "patches" for the system is the far, far bigger issue in play here, not that either is a small one.

A closed border is a border that prevents movement of people between different jurisdictions with limited or no exceptions associated with this movement. These borders normally have fences or walls in which any gates or border crossings are closed and if these border gates are opened they generally only allow movement of people in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the most famous example of an extant closed border is the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea. The Berlin Wall could also have been called a closed border.

Borders can be open or and closed based on: entry status, entry duration, entry qualifications, entrant rights and obligations, and entry quotas.[6]

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I want more security and I suppose this zero tolerance policy is close to a closed border policy but my understanding is they are just going to implement this zero tolerance policy until they get the large amount of illegal border crossings under control.

Ha. I'm completely fine with more security, myself, but if the goal was actually getting the large amount of illegal border crossings under control, the appropriate steps would be very different than getting rid of legal methods or making them dramatically more difficult to do.

My understanding is once you are arrested this entitles you to an expedited removal. You do not have to appear in a court, immigration officers can grant you an expedited removal. This would happen when being charged with a misdemeanor. Problem is I don't know if this is occurring now with the Zero Tolerance policies but I think it is.

I must have missed where you posted it before? *shrug* Thank you for providing it. After looking at it, though, I can answer this better -

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I've understood the migrants are only detained for three days on average before they are reunited with their children. In the document I posted it states 48 hours but I can't find when that particular document was used, is it current?

It looks like you misread things. In that document, it does not say that the parents will be reunited with the children, let alone reunited within 48 hours, or that they will be released from detainment in that time. It does imply it to some extent with the way that it's stated initially, though. After that, however, it steadily demolishes that implication. Once you get to the kept in "ICE custody" part and arranged contact by phone, it's untenable.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I don't know if this is given out to those detained or if it's posted on the walls. Don't know if this is recent or from years ago. I would assume recent.

It is actually quite likely to be recent. Again, this particular issue is being artificially created by the Trump Administration, however much the right-wing media have been trying to conflate things like crazy as they to try to divert the responsibility.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

After researching closed and open borders I would be for controlled borders.

As are most Democrats, contrary to the utter nonsense that the right-wing keeps trying to push.

Ehh... if your starting point is the right-wing media, it's certainly left leaning. More objectively, the mainstream media tends to be quite centrist in nature. Actually left-wing media tends to go largely unheard, and the right wing is obviously loud.

The spectrum I'm thinking of is more along the lines of "collective good" vs. "personal responsibility." If everything is personal responsibility, there is going to be less interest in general in matters of policy. The immigration horror show will simply be the result of individuals making risky choices, rather than policy that we as a society deliberately choose to pursue.

Trump's administration has not been strong on the whole concept of policy. Wonks are out of fashion in conservative circles. There's probably actually hostility to the idea of considering nuance or unintended consequences. Everything is a test of personal loyalty to Donald Trump. I don't think that will last forever, but I'm not formulating an expiration date, either.

The spectrum I'm thinking of is more along the lines of "collective good" vs. "personal responsibility."

Which doesn't actually change the point that was made significantly. The left-right spectrum is usually dirtily treated as a spectrum of where one balances individual rights versus societal rights, after all.

Yes and no. Are you being "arrested" or "detained" during a traffic stop? You're not free to go, but all you're really asked to do is consent to a court date. Technology is such that they can now scan your prints instantly, and get back a hit pretty quickly. I would argue that once you know the person isn't wanted for anything serious, they can safely be released, possible with monitoring. This does take time, but with enough planning that process can happen in a few hours vs. days or weeks - days or weeks in which your children are sent into a system that no one had designed for reunification with kids.

I was wondering about the asylum seekers, were they detained or were they arrested? From all I've read seems like it must be both.

Quote:

Correct. However, migrants were being told that the port was closed, or that the bridge was closed - they were camping out trying to go through the port but were denied access. So they took the risk of entering illegally, probably knowing they'd be caught, but not knowing that the secret agenda was to punish them by taking away their kids, possibly forever.

I haven't found any proof telling me it was the Trumps Administrations agenda to take away the children forever.

Quote:

Again: It's semantics. The point of "zero tolerance" is to charge them all with misdemeanors. Which I don't have an ideological problem with, if they can be screened and monitored. Under that scenario, they (if caught, and they probably want to get caught) are, yes, technically under arrest. They're detained. They're booked. They're charged. A well-thought out process could minimize the time this takes. And perhaps there would be some provision to drop the misdemeanor if they eventually qualified for asylum.

After researching I'm understanding this much better and I agree with you, a plan that sounds good but the people in charge of planning this and executing it did a poor job.

Quote:

If they're admitted as asylum seekers, I don't think they've done anything illegal. But close the port of entry and it becomes an issue. This I think was the origin of "catch and release," which IMO was a scare term.

Can you show me where you found this information about the ports being closed on purpose?

Quote:

Certainly some are, probably teenagers, whose parents were taking advantage of Bush-era protections for unaccompanied youths seeking asylum. They're guaranteed a court date and can only be held for so long. Then they had to be farmed out to the "least constrictive" environment. That might have meant boarding with a foster family that they then walked away from in order to find work. Or maybe to be gangsters, we don't really know.

They have given a recent update on children under five being reunited with their parents. Seems to be coming along pretty well. From what I'm learning the Secretary of Homeland Security did not do an adequate job of explaining why the children were separated from their parents. She said the children separated were children who came across on their own. They are finding adults whose DNA is showing they are not the parents, finding criminal records of parents and abuse charges but I think the Secretary of Homeland Security did a terrible job with explaining what was really taking place. I'm very disappointed in her performance.

Quote:

Possibly. There are games played with statistics. U.S. officials don't want "border deaths" to be too high, so they might want to exclude some of the roughly 200,000 square miles where hundreds of people die each year. They might also massage figures on "border apprehensions." But, as far as I know, the stated policies on that are fairly clear. It has to do (I think) with Border Patrol jurisdiction, vs. ICE or similar.

Still reading up on all involved.

Quote:

I don't know but I doubt it. Under "catch and release" there would be no barrier to preclude 48 hours or 3 days. Under "zero tolerance" things got pretty gummed up. With planning things could still be fast-tracked - plead guilty, boom, get on a plane to Guatemala. Except in practice people were being deported without their kids. Bait-and-switch, IMO, whether for nefarious purposes or due to ineptitude, I'm not sure, but given statements by Jeff Sessions and to a lesser extent Sarah Sanders I think some of it was deliberate cruelty.

I'm hoping Sessions said what he said just to try and cover up how poorly this was executed. Got himself in more hot water with what he said.

Quote:

I would think that is waived or deferred, but that parents would be on unsupervised probation and if their print turned up again they'd possibly face a felony charge. The kids could be printed too; I don't know if that took place. Some of them got (ID) bracelets.

A problem with incarcerating these people if they end up with a felony is we don't have room in our Federal prisons. Also deterrents usually do not work. Going to be interesting to see how this all works out.

Quote:

They are targets for robbery, rape, kidnapping for ransom, human trafficking. And some, I assume, are genuinely bad hombres.

I mentioned money because it didn't make sense to me they would travel carrying a lot of money and bail or bond may be impossible to make. Yes the dangers for many of these people is horrible and hopefully this behavior will be lessened by what Trump is attempting to do.

Quote:

Conditions in the field would influence some of that. Felonies probably would be jailed on the spot if charged, I'm guessing with no or prohibitive bond. Misdemeanors might depend on available transport, or if the detainee can be placed with U.S. citizens or green cardholders, or whether they can and maybe even desire to be held in detention. By law, immigration officials must fill 34,000 detention beds each night. No other law enforcement agency has a quota for detainee beds that must be filled. Some people think this benefits private prisons and logistics agencies.

I had no idea they had a quota to fill on filling detainee beds.

Quote:

A lot of it doesn't require bills, which is a good thing because nobody can pass anything. It's almost axiomatic: Any given measure attracts enough opposition to kill it. That's why Bush, McCain and others pushed for a grand bargain that included a provisional path to legal status, beefed-up security, guest-worker visas, E-Verify, modifications to chain immigration, the Dream Act etc. Something for everyone. If zero tolerance is the policy - leaving aside whether it's a good policy - that can be mitigated by well-thought-out measures to streamline processing time, put monitoring in place, possibly arrange for quick deportation with their kids etc.

Good

Quote:

Legal aid types love educating people on immigration law. But immigration law is a huge, sprawling topic. It's a kludge, since the last time our country revamped the system comprehensively was 1986, when a Democratic congress passed and Ronald Reagan signed a bill that involved no wall, granted amnesty and established weak procedures making it a crime to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant.

Too much to take in and be able to understand. I'm figuring this out.

Quote:

Some have speculated that this 1986 law accelerated demographic change in the U.S. Instead of coming and going relatively freely across the "porous" border, seasonal workers, generally unaccompanied men, who once returned to Mexico during the off-season started bringing up their wives and having babies. (Thus the feared "anchor babies.") Mexicans like babies, not to stereotype but my Mexican-American students seemed shocked that I didn't have any.

lol

Quote:

So there started being families that were a mix of citizens, illegal immigrants, green-card holders etc. Family separations started to become a policy issue, and few politicians wanted to be seen as ripping apart families. Until the Trump administration, which was either indifferent or looking forward to it. Not necessarily even Trump himself, but Sessions, Miller etc.

Possibly indifferent but no way to know for sure what they were or are thinking. I'm keeping an open mind. Hopefully before long I will know the truth. At this time I wouldn't be surprised if some people lose their jobs for what has happened.

Experts warn that many of these children may be deeply traumatized by their experiences. Their voices have seldom been heard during the frenzied debate over family separation.

“I felt like a prisoner,” said Diogo De Olivera Filho, a 9-year-old from Brazil who spent five weeks at a shelter in Chicago, including three weeks in isolation after getting chickenpox. When he got lonely and left his quarantined room to see other kids, he said the shelter put up a gate to keep him in. “I felt like a dog,” he said.

I haven't found any proof telling me it was the Trumps Administrations agenda to take away the children forever.

I doubt that they cared about that point in the first place or needed to care. They just made it a nightmare to reunite the kids with their parents, policy-wise, on top of changing things so that the separations were happening in the first place. Some of the people actually in ICE may well have intentionally done so, though... which has a bunch to do with the kinds of things that have led to a number of Democrats being in favor of dissolving ICE, even if they are in favor of ICE's general official mission.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

After researching I'm understanding this much better and I agree with you, a plan that sounds good but the people in charge of planning this and executing it did a poor job.

...No, the family separation and general cruelty were intentional and much of the point. It was and is a way to try to deter asylum seekers from heading towards us in the first place. Trump and co are pandering specifically to the (now) Republican lie that immigrants are stealing all those jobs and that that's a fair part of the reason for why a bunch of their base are in poor condition.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

They have given a recent update on children under five being reunited with their parents. Seems to be coming along pretty well.

Under the circumstances where they caused things to be so hard to do in the first place?

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

From what I'm learning the Secretary of Homeland Security did not do an adequate job of explaining why the children were separated from their parents. She said the children separated were children who came across on their own.

That's quite the excuse. The two groups are pointedly in different categories for the implications involved. That they're intentionally not distinguishing between them in their official statistics now is a rather anger worthy thing.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

They are finding adults whose DNA is showing they are not the parents,

Older siblings acting as guardians aren't parents, as a reminder. Nor are aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

finding criminal records of parents and abuse charges but I think the Secretary of Homeland Security did a terrible job with explaining what was really taking place. I'm very disappointed in her performance.

There are indeed legitimate cases where there is cause to separate the children from their parents or guardians. That 'due diligence' isn't even remotely happening on that front is one of the major reasons at the root of the issues there.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

I'm hoping Sessions said what he said just to try and cover up how poorly this was executed. Got himself in more hot water with what he said.

Faith in humanity is nice and all... but there's a lot of humans that certainly do qualify as idiotic or outright evil in various ways, even if they have redeeming features in other ways. I actually have no problem with Trump's "very fine people" comment, though. That someone is a racist or white supremacist doesn't automatically make them a terrible person overall. It's just a quite obvious strike against them.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

A problem with incarcerating these people if they end up with a felony is we don't have room in our Federal prisons. Also deterrents usually do not work. Going to be interesting to see how this all works out.

A problem? The private prison people threw their political and financial weight behind Trump seemingly for business reasons. Democrats are becoming increasingly unhappy with America's overwhelming the prisons issues that seem to be caused by the lobbying of prisons to a fair extent, after all, and Republicans keep trying to turn that, and similar legitimate concerns, into "weak on crime" and a bunch of lies.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

Good

It's good that it can be done... but, given that what the Trump Administration's actually been doing is essentially the opposite, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Originally Posted by ThoughtIsFree

At this time I wouldn't be surprised if some people lose their jobs for what has happened.

...That would require a level of integrity that the current set of Republican leaders seem loathe to rise to. This is the set who made their proposal of the very first thing to do be to gut the ability of the House ethics committee to actually do their job, after all.

I have no doubt the majority of children separated from their parents would have rather stayed with their parents. I'm wondering what these children lived like before their parents chose to break our laws and bring their children to America? Think about the women and children you read about found dead in the back of trucks, semis, vans etc. They cook to death. I myself find that terrifying, also the women and children who get nabbed by sex traffickers and all the horrific stories you hear about what can happen to these people fleeing their own countries to live in another. I would love to see it stop and people be educated as to how to safely find a new home.

I understand the emotion that got stirred up when many found out children were being separated from their parents at our borders but to be honest with you I felt the story was sensationalized. I'm happy they are checking these people to see if any abuse has or is happening to the children and only letting asylum seekers who qualify stay. Also happy they have a way to reunite these families and hopefully they find a way to make the changes at the border for people entering illegally to have a swift process.

I've read some cases the ACLU has taken on and I hope for any migrants or immigrants that feel they have a criminal case they can get justice.

I wanted to make a correction to my post saying the Secretary of Homeland Security said the children separated from their parents were children not accompanied by an adult. Sorry that was not what she said. She said those seeking asylum and coming in through the ports of entry were not separated from their children. I think since this is involved she needed to give a much more detailed account of what was taking place. She also said the media was not reporting this accurately which lead me to believe I needed to research and find the truth.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.